ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSCRIPT: This telepathic channeling has been taken from transcriptions of the weekly study and meditation meetings of the Rock Creek Research & Development Laboratories and L/L Research. It is offered in the hope that it may be useful to you. As the Confederation entities always make a point of saying, please use your discrimination and judgment in assessing this material. If something rings true to you, fine. If something does not resonate, please leave it behind, for neither we nor those of the Confederation would wish to be a stumbling block for any.

Sunday Meditation

October 3, 2004

Group question: The question this week has to do with the roots of the concept of what we call “terrorism,” the attempts by a small group of people to gain that which they feel is their due and to gain it by violent means. We were referred back to the Biblical story of Sarah and Abraham where Abraham was unable to bear a child because Sarah was barren. He went in to Sarah’s maid-servant, Hagar, who was Egyptian, and she bore him a son, Ishmael. Fourteen years later, when Abraham was 100, Sarah was blessed by the Lord God at that time to have a child who was named Isaac. These two were the children of Abraham but only Isaac achieved the inheritance. Ishmael was left to wander into the desert and to form the tribes of what we now call the Arabs. And it is the battle between the Arabs and the Jews that seems to be so violently apparent in our world today. So we were wondering if Q’uo could give us a philosophical background of this type of energy and how it can be resolved upon our planet Earth today.

(Carla channeling)

We are those of the principle known to you as Q’uo, and we greet you in the love and in the light of the one infinite Creator, in Whose service we come to you this day. It is a great privilege and pleasure to be with you and to share the beauty of your meditation and we offer you our gratitude for creating this moment and this experience of a circle of seeking that is expressing light and love as it sits together in query and in devotion.

It is our blessing to be called to this group for the purpose of sharing our thoughts on terrorism and we are happy to do so with the request—which is especially pointed as we talk concerning a somewhat hot issue, as this instrument would say—that you afford us the opportunity to offer you thoughts without our forcing you to believe them or take them in any way. Please allow us to share our thoughts with you while remaining in complete control over whether or not you wish to continue to think about these thoughts or in any way make them part of your process. For your integrity in doing so allows us to be assured of the freedom of your will. We would not in any way wish to be a stumbling block before your own process. And if you will allow us this freedom, it will allow us the freedom to speak freely. And this particular concern of ours is clearly about freedom. We thank you for that.

The query this day has to do with the philosophy behind terrorism. And as that query stands, we would find it very difficult to create a good answer, for we believe that philosophy as a branch of the circle of knowledge is not something that lends itself to the creation of a structure in which something like terrorism would be acceptable. When ethics is discussed as a philosophical system, it concerns not ways to take away freedom from entities but ways to safeguard their freedom. The Nietzschean superman [1] is perhaps the closest that respectable, shall we say, philosophy comes to offering a structure which justifies terrorism and its justification can be roughly shortened to the phrase that “might makes right.” We would not wish to defend this philosophy in a group of ethical panelists; we would find it heavy going, indeed.

The aura of philosophy, therefore, cannot be said to lie over, or lend respectability to, terrorism and its sister acts, war and violence. The shorthand version of the most appropriate philosophical structure for terrorism is, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” And this is, rather than proper philosophy, simply an explanation of why entities—whether they be individual or of a group nature—resort to and use the techniques of terror.

The Creator is not an organic entity, as far as we know. It does not have members, a mind, emotions or any of the other attributes of third-density humankind. Nor does it have the attributes of fourth-density humankind, or fifth-density, or sixth-density. The Creator, as we understand the one infinite Creator, is beyond all attempts to describe, limit or otherwise distinguish the Creator from some other entity. The Creator is in fact all that there is, seen and unseen, known and unknown, possible and impossible. The Creator is all states of mind, all ways of thinking, and is not exhausted by any such lists of attributes or descriptions. The attempt to get one’s mind around the concept of the creative principle is always, in the end, an inutile attempt. It will not be useful.

On the other hand, attempting to delineate those characteristics of the Creator which entities within a certain density and of a certain culture can understand is very helpful. So we would not ask you to stop attempting to understand the Creator, we ask you only to realize that that which entities such as yourself have written concerning the Creator are words. They are not truths, they are words written down by entities attempting to understand that which cannot be understood.

The query that you asked brought in the concept of a certain creative entity by the name of Yahweh, or Jehovah, whose orders, presumably, brought about the warlike actions of the one known as Joshua and all of those who did battle in order to achieve territory in the story which unfolds in the books of Moses within your Old Testament of the Holy Bible, so-called, within your literature. There have been unending numbers of attempts to understand the mind of this Old Testament figure, Yahweh, and this is why we began with the assertion that there is no figure known to literature which captures the essence of the creative principle. Certainly the one known as Yahweh falls far short of expressing what we understand to be some of the more obvious characteristics of the creative principle, those being its universality and its unity. How could a creative principle set one entity over another when, to the Creator, all things are one, all beings are children of the same parent, brothers and sister of one deity, one Creator?

However, the one known as Yahweh was a powerful force in acting through entities such as Moses, Joshua, and Abraham.

In the history of your people—not simply the religious history of your people but the political, economic and social history of your people—the story concerning Isaac and Ishmael is a story steeped in birth rights. And this is an interesting characteristic of the system used by the one known as Yahweh. We may describe Yahweh as an Earth guardian which entered into a plan to be of service to others without thinking through the ramifications of such a plan. When it chose to do work to create a new and better version of the Egyptian stock that was the genetic base of that region at that time, it chose one of two types of genetic beings that differed somewhat in their genetic heritage because of there being other genetic applications by other extraterrestrial entities in their past. They chose the entities that had the seemingly more appropriate basic characteristics of intelligence, culture and so forth. They separated out one group from another in a way which the creative principle would never have done, and created, therefore, a sub-race which these guardian entities considered new and better and therefore worthy of having the elbow room in which to bring forth the improvements in mind, body and spirit that those known as Yahweh felt were possible for such an assisted group.

Why it did not occur to these guardian entities that this would involve war-like actions such as the slaughter of many innocents, we cannot say. However it was so that your history and the psychic energies of these groups of peoples were altered forever by this interference. It created what is patently an unfair situation. And certainly, the sons and daughters of Isaac and Ishmael grieve as one people for this interference and for the many ramifications that it had.

When any situation enters the stream of history it also enters the stream of mythology. And through the passage of time and events, the history of the Israelites and the Ishmaelites has become very fuzzy and much, if not all, of the story as it happened in history has been lost. And what has remained are stories that catch the emotion, the energy, and the main points of the history, so that while you may attempt to trace the children of Ishmael and the tribes of Ishmael and so forth, such attempts will always be trammeled by the inevitable tendency of those who come after and who are in power to look at a situation which has gone before in a way that places events in the best possible light for those who have the laurels of winning upon their heads and are thus able to tell the story with the loudest voice. This telling of the story with the loudest voice is something that occurs at all times, in all phases of history and certainly within your cultures of this day. Yet, in looking at the history of warfare and terrorism, it may be seen that, generally, the issues have to do with groups of people who feel that it is their birthright to have certain perquisites [2] and rights. That feeling of entitlement is at the heart of violence, war and terrorism.

In terms of the creative principle, all lands are one, all people are one. The design of your particular third-density world was a design in which each of your genetic races was expected to express themselves dominantly for a certain period of time. It was never intended that one race dominate your planet for an extended period of time such as your white race has in many cases done. The energies of each race had a certain way of opening the heart and the quite variant ways of looking at the creative principle were expected to float and flow from one dominant culture to the next, to the next, in a rhythmic and natural manner. It was hoped at this point in your development as a global group that there would be at this time among all of your cultures a tendency towards the feminine principle as the creative principle or the deity. For, in terms of the birthing of the fourth density of your planet, it is this creative, feminine energy that holds the light of service to others in the appropriate manner for assisting the one this instrument calls Gaia and many call the Earth or Terra in her very feminine and very profound labor. This has not occurred.

The energy placed by the group known as Yahweh into the entities which had come upon your sphere from the planet known as Mars created a stopping point, as if someone had put up a roadblock upon the energetic levels of the planet which held in place that energy which claims to be monotheistic, claiming to be one God; and yet which, by its very definition, can not be monotheistic in that it states it is a God of one nation. If there is a God of one nation and not of another, then, quite obviously, it is part of a multi-theistic system, or a system of more than one God.

And indeed, at the time of the [one] known as Moses, the world was poised upon the point of a pin, as it were, in attempting to move into true monotheism. Think of it, if you will, for we often have, as one of the members of our principle is the group of Ra which attempted to speak to the princes of Egypt in those times concerning the true creative principle which is One. The one known as Moses was well aware of this true monotheism and indeed, in his heart, was, shall we say, devoted to and trained up within this system. However, this entity and all of the entities involved in these times was a human being who was steeped in the culture of many gods and found it impossible to hold to a pure belief in one God in the attempt to be a leader of his people. Leader after leader among your peoples has faced this challenge. How does an entity who leads one group, and is responsible to and for one group, act in such a way that the group will feel that its rights are being preserved and those things to which it is entitled will be protected while simultaneously defending and maintaining the rights and the entitlements of all other groups? It is a tremendously subtle thing to attempt to unravel a specific situation in such a way that both of these values are maintained.

We would bring to your attention the one known as Mahatma Gandhi. We have spoken before of this entity. This was an entity who was very clever in ways which are, for the most part, reserved for those of service to self in their philosophy. Yet, this entity’s vision was powerful in its unity and it refused to allow any thinking which closed the heart against any, even those which this entity perceived, with some justification, as suborning and limiting the rights of his own people. In all of Gandhi’s dealings with the government of those who were British and who held the reins of rulership of his nation at that time, this entity refrained from, at any time, closing the heart against or lifting a weapon towards those entities which would be considered the enemy, that is the British. Using homely and easily understood physical metaphors, such as spinning the thread, this entity was able to put before his group the image of self-worth and independence. How can an entity see self-worth and independence in making thread out of cotton? Yet, the Indian people received the lesson that the one known as Gandhi offered.

In many, many ways, this entity made life very difficult for those of the British rulership of his nation. Yet, never was this entity less than cordial and civil. He could not have succeeded nor could his ideas have taken hold were he not coming from a place of genuine love. If he had hated his enemy, no matter had he done exactly the same things in his political posturing, he would not have succeeded. His integrity and purity of motive were such that those of India and those of Britain alike were able to see it, feel it, and in the end, respect it and respond to it. His working to aid his people, therefore, never took on the shades of violence or terrorism but retained the goodly hue of faith, love and hope.

When you see small groups or large unable to resist the techniques of terrorism, we would ask you to see groups which have become entangled with issues of entitlement and justice. In each situation, there is a path to peace. This path begins in the heart. It calls for men who are both clever and compassionate. It calls for those who are able to understand the techniques for service to self but whose purity of focus and whose open hearts are such as to avail them of the techniques of unconditional love. There is no justification for violence and yet it lies within the human heart to defend the group against those who are not a part of the group. This is part of the instinct with which each human being comes into incarnation. It is part of the heritage of the physical vehicle of the great ape of which you are a recent descendant. If you examine the customs of these great apes, as the one known as Desmond Morris has done, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that violence is something with which each human being must deal, not as a faraway thing, but as an intimate friend, as a part of the household of personality. One of the boarders of each of your bodies is violence.

The one known as G was saying that he did not believe he would be able to pull the trigger against another human being. This is a laudable and a noble sentiment. Yet is spoken by one who has never been in the position of defending those he loves from someone who would surely do them harm. The instinct of one who is being threatened is indeed to pull the trigger. When dealing with groups, that group instinct remains as lethal as that. No matter how many layers of civility and diplomacy are offered, beneath each situation and its endless rationales on both sides there lies a situation in which two groups—which are in truth, one—have accepted a model in which one group is over against another. Once this basic and existent situation is accepted, there can always be a rationale which leads to violence, whether it is violence offered by those who have the approval of other nations as belonging to a rightful group of nations or whether it does not have such approval and is therefore, without any choice for itself, considered an outlaw. When an outlaw attempts to achieve entitlement, it is considered terrorism. That is the only difference between terrorism and war. It is an artificial distinction based upon the underlying artificial distinction of groups defining themselves as separate.

Perhaps you have noticed in working with other entities that there is a tendency for entities to divide endlessly into groups and sub-groups and sub-sub-groups. There is a delight in finding a way in which one group has done the right thing and another group has been less successful. The feeling of being better than, stronger than, or more justified than another group is a feeling which is endlessly sought because it feels good. It feels good to belong. It feels good to be part of a virtuous, morally upright group. And so the posturing is endless, the facts and stories are told again and again and, in each telling, there is the twist put upon the tale to show the rightness of those who have been ascendant and the poverty of rightness in those who have been the losers. In our opinion, each story is distorted, each entitlement is questionable, and each rightful group is, at base, artificial and unhelpful. Yet, the whole object of third density is to face the individual entity, and the resultant groups that form from such individuals, with situation after situation which is enough of a puzzle to be worth the solving. And that solving gives each entity the opportunity to grow in terms of spiritual, mental, emotional and physical evolution.

So what we would leave you with in thinking about terrorism is how you, as an individual, can cease using the techniques of terror and war in how you work with yourself, in how you work with the most intimate of those about you: your spouses, your children, your parents, and your family; in how you work with those very intimate groups of employment, mutually shared goals of all kinds, in groups that come together to serve. How can you keep your heart open and stay devoted to the one infinite Creator? There will be many arguments that pull you endlessly off your center of gravity. And you will be off balance and out of your comfort zone again and again, for these are deeply profound difficulties your world faces at this time. Those who, as the one known as J mentioned, blew up Mars, are attempting now to blow up your Earth. They almost succeeded as a group in that land you know of as Atlantis. And energies mass once again for the attempt to achieve an Armageddon. It is an energy that is deeply entrenched in the genetic memory of this racial group which we would call the white race. Yet, because of the way that history has become stuck upon this monotheistic Yahweh and its resultant energies …

(Side one of tape ends.)

(Carla channeling)

It is a planetary experience once again.

What shall you do to grow your world into that loving, unified, peaceful world which each of you can envision? May we say that it begins with you, this day and this moment, not in a large way but in the most small way. What are your thoughts as you approach your next decision? Is there a desire to defend? Is there a desire to protect? Examine these desires. Is there the desire to embrace and to bring into One? Examine that desire. Examine your thoughts carefully to sift out those energies which have in them a lack of that focus and resonance which you can associate with the open heart.

We ask you as well to be clever, to work with the limitations and distortions of the culture about you rather than attempting to leave them behind. Attempt to work within them so that the very things that are designed to be limiting become those things that are freeing. This is the work of an immense amount of subtlety and cleverness and yet each of you has a good mind, a good power of reasoning and imagination, and a gift of creativity. We suggest that you add to those things humor, patience and an endless supply of thankfulness. How can you be joyful and peaceful within if your life is not grounded in the thankfulness that you are here, that you have this impossible task in front of you, and the time to address the purposes for which you entered incarnation? Keep that ground of thankfulness and that awareness of the self as just the beginning that opens to you the Creator that you are and see every door that is shut as a temporary thing, lifting away from anger, disappointment and hostility to embrace hope, faith and love.

This instrument informs us that we must move on and we would open the questioning now to specific queries that you may have at this time. Who would wish to ask a question at this time?

G: Q’uo, Iin the Law of One series, the questioner asked about which of the two paths was more positively polarizing, one path where you defend a positive entity from negative suppression or the second path where you allow the suppression by the negatively-oriented entities. Ra answered by using the example of Jesus’ lack of desire to be defended as if that was the higher understanding or the higher way. Could you expand on why allowing suppression by the negatively-oriented entity seems or is the more polarizing of the two?

We are those of Q’uo, and are aware of your query, my brother. This question offers a chance to look at polarity in this particular sense of not defending the self, in that the one known as Jesus chose not to defend itself and was therefore given a quite ignominious death, a death reserved for those enemies of the state that were the worst. In doing so, this entity expressed the highest degree of a lack of defense of the self. The polarity involved in that choice was that which is gained by working against the whole impulse to defend the self. Laying down all choice of defending the self, therefore, expressed the one known as Jesus’ absolute faith in the goodness of all entities, including his enemies.

Personally speaking, it was very successful in establishing [its own] polarity. If this entity had been more subtle and clever, it might have found ways to stay alive while expressing unconditional love and therefore gained for itself the opportunity to interact further through time as the agent of the creative principle. And, therefore, it can be seen that a choice which gains greatly in personal polarity may yet create a situation in which the gain in the polarity of the group was potentially less. It is difficult to grade, shall we say, the acts which a person may do or the thinking behind them and how that was. The best that this entity was able to achieve in its incarnation, at its time of choice, was the choice that it made.

May we answer you further?

G: I’ll take a stab at it, Q’uo. Jesus was a martyr. He expressed to the fullest extent the fourth chakra, the open heart. Had he seated his experience in the blue ray and exercised the energies of wisdom, [had he] brought wisdom into his choice-making decisions and expressed that level of understanding, would wisdom then dictate to him, or inform him of, a choice in which he could have defended himself and polarized further?

We are those of Q’uo, and are aware of your query, my brother. Indeed, we were expressing that option as the road that was untraveled, as the one known as Robert Frost has spoken in his poem.[3] There is always a road that is untraveled whenever any choice is made. It is unknown because of the passage of time and circumstance whether that option would have achieved for the one known as Jesus a result that would have been more in focus in terms of his vision. For this entity did not see that that road was better. And indeed, when each of you makes a choice, there is always the road that is not taken. That may from time to time come up in the mind, as the one known as V said in speaking of that object of great beauty which she passed up eight years ago. It must recur within the mind when choices have been made. Yet, the glory of such times is that they are times of true choice when that which you decide shall create a change in all that occurs from that point forward.

May we answer you further, my brother?

G: A follow up. I have a question about a different situation, involving the idea, the energy, of defense. Every situation is unique and in Jesus’ case he had a vision which crystallized in his mind but, in general then, what choice would a blue-ray entity or an indigo-ray entity, in the situation where in order to defend you need to kill another to save your own life, make? Who’s to say what choice an entity will make, for each situation is unique, but, in general, would a blue-ray entity see it within his understanding, within his parameters, to kill another to save his own life?

We are those of Q’uo, and are aware of your query, my brother. We believe you are asking if an entity whose blue-ray energy center is fully opened would be able in good conscience to take a life. And we may say that, in terms of that energy body, it is perfectly possible to do any action if that action is seen by that entity in a clear enough focus. The ability of the mind to create bias in situations is unending. And there are many entities who have gloriously expressed blue ray while killing others. That sense of entitlement is a strong thing. When an entity becomes absolutely convinced of the rightness of the need for violence, it becomes possible to have a fully functioning blue-ray energy, green-ray energy, and all other energies, and at the same time, to kill. This is why spiritual evolution is not a simple thing. For the mind within incarnation is constantly and inevitably blindsided by distortion. Consequently, it is a matter of picking your way, moment by moment, and thought by thought, coming back always to the fundamental basis of your own faith rather than depending upon an entity, a principle, or any other created structure.

May we answer you further, my brother?

G: That’s very thought-provoking. That opens all other kinds of cans of worms in my mind, but, no thank you, Q’uo, and thank you for the answers you were able to give. Thank you, instrument.

We are those of Q’uo, and we thank you, my brother, as well.

Is there a final query at this time?

(No further queries.)

We are those of Q’uo, and as we do not hear any sound vibrations hitting this instrument’s ears, we are assuming that we have run you out of questions this day. We just thank you with all of our hearts for bringing yourselves and your concerns to this circle of seeking. It is such a joy to share our thoughts with you and we hope we may encourage and find ways to support each of you as you go forward in your quest for truth and service and devotion to the one infinite Creator. We bless each of you and thank you and we leave you, as always, in the love and in the light of the one infinite Creator. We are those of Q’uo. Adonai. Adonai.

[1] The theory that Nietzsche offered was that there was “a mode of psychologically healthier being beyond the common human condition. Nietzsche refers to this higher mode of being as ‘superhuman’ (übermenschlich), and associates the doctrine of eternal recurrence—a doctrine for only the healthiest who can love life in its entirety—with this spiritual standpoint, in relation to which all-too-often downhearted, all-too-commonly-human attitudes stand as a mere bridge to be crossed and overcome.” (From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/.)

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood
and sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
and looked down one as far as I could
to where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
and having perhaps the better claim
because it was grassy and wanted wear;
though as for that, the passing there
had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
in leaves no feet had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less travelled by,
and that has made all the difference.